 
 -------------------------
 Detected 1 error\n"
-         (expound/expound-str :multi-spec/el {:multi-spec/el-type :image}))))
-
-  (testing "valid dispatch value, but other error"
-    (is (=
-         "-- Spec failed --------------------
+           (expound/expound-str :multi-spec/el {:multi-spec/el-type :image}))))
+
+    (testing "valid dispatch value, but other error"
+      (is (=
+           "-- Spec failed --------------------
 
   {:multi-spec/el-type :text}
 


-------------------------
Detected 1 error\n"
           (expound/expound-str :duplicate-preds/str-or-str 1)))))


(s/def :fspec-test/div (s/fspec


  ;; mspecs not supported
  #_(is (=
         ;; This output is not what we want: ideally, the two alternates
         ;; should be grouped into a single problem.
         ;; I'm adding it as a spec to avoid regressions and to keep it as
         ;; an example of something I could improve.
         ;; The reason we can't do better is that we can't reliably look
         ;; at the form of a multi-spec. It would be nice if spec inserted
         ;; the actual spec form that was returned by the multi-spec, but
         ;; as it stands today, we'd have to figure out how to call the multi-
         ;; method with the actual value. That would be complicated and
         ;; potentially have unknown side effects from running arbitrary code.

         "-- Spec failed --------------------

  {:mspec {:tag ..., :one-many-int [[\"1\"]]}}
                                    ^^^^^
